Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 16, 2005 ; Judgment: November 17, 2005
Full case name	Kirkbi AG and Lego Canada Inc. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc./Gestions Ritvik Inc. (now operating as Mega Bloks Inc.)
Citations	2005 SCC 65, [2005] 3 SCR 302
Docket No.	29956
Prior history	APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, Sexton and Pelletier JJA), 2003 FCA 297, [2004] 2 FCR 241(14 July 2003), upholding a decision of Gibson J 2002 FCT 585 (24 May 2002), Federal Court (Canada)
Ruling	Appeal dismissed
Holding
	Kirkbi’s passing‑off claim under s. 7(b) must be dismissed, as is barred by the application of the doctrine of functionality.
Court membership
	Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin ; Puisne Justices: Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by	LeBel J
Laws applied
	Trade-marks Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 7(b))

Last updated October 02, 2023

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.,^[2] popularly known as the Lego Case, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act ^[3] which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.

Background

Mega Bloks building block (above) and Lego building brick (below) Mega Bloks vs. LEGO.JPG — Mega Bloks building block (above) and Lego building brick (below)

History of the Trade-marks Act

While s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the Parliament of Canada jurisdiction over copyright and patent matters, it is silent with respect to trademarks.^[4] However, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Canada have both suggested in their jurisprudence that the Trade-marks Act is a valid exercise of the federal trade and commerce power.^[5]

Lego and Mega Bloks

Kirkbi AG, a member of The Lego Group, previously held patents in the design and form of Lego blocks, which had expired in Canada and elsewhere.^[6]^[7] Ritvik produced the pieces known as Mega Bloks. Kirkbi attempted to register the design of their blocks as a trade-mark but was denied by the Registrar of Trade-marks.^[8] Kirkbi then asserted unregistered trade-mark rights against Ritvik through an unregistered trade-mark in the distinctive orthogonal pattern of raised studs distributed on the top of each toy-building brick, and claimed relief under s. 7(b) of the Act, as well as under the common law doctrine of passing off.^[9]

Ritvik denied any breach under the Act or at common law and counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to continue to make, offer for sale and sell in Canada its blocks and related parts.

Lower courts

Federal Court

Gibson J. dismissed Kirkbi's claim of based on trade-mark, finding that:^[10]

Kirkbi had an interest in an unregistered trademark, but only with respect of the inscription "LEGO" on the top surface of each stud,
there was no trademark protection in purely functional features, and
in considering the claim of passing off, while Kirkbi had acquired goodwill in the particular configuration of its bricks, it had failed to prove that Ritvik had intentionally misrepresented its product.

Federal Court of Appeal

Kirkbi's appeal was dismissed. Writing for the majority, Sexton JA did not comment on the questions of confusion and the elements of the tort of passing off, but did find that the doctrine of functionality applied to trade-marks, whether registered or not.^[11]

In dissent, Pelletier JA, held:^[12]

the "LEGO" mark, although functional, could still be the basis of a passing-off claim under s. 7(b), as Kirkbi was entitled to protection against the confusing use of its unregistered mark
the doctrine of functionality was no longer part of the law of trade-marks in Canada in respect of unregistered marks, by reason of changes to the Act
the elements of passing off had been made out, since, even though no deliberate strategy to deceive had been established, confusion in the market between Kirkbi and Ritvik products had been proved.

Supreme Court

In a unanimous judgment, the appeal was dismissed. In his reasons, LeBel J held that:

s. 7(b) of the Trade‑marks Act was intra vires the Parliament of Canada, and
Kirkbi’s passing‑off claim under s. 7(b) must be dismissed, as it is barred by the application of the doctrine of functionality.

Constitutionality

It was not until the case was at the Supreme Court that Ritvik challenged the constitutionality of s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act. LeBel J stated that it was constitutional,^[13] saying:

the intrusion of s. 7(b) into provincial jurisdiction is minimal, as it is remedial and is limited in its application by the provisions of the Act.
the Trade‑marks Act is a valid exercise of Parliament’s general trade and commerce power.
s. 7(b) is sufficiently integrated into the Trade‑marks Act, as a "functional relationship", such as is present here, is sufficient to sustain the constitutionality of the provision.

Doctrine of Functionality

Citing jurisprudence dating back to 1964, LeBel noted:

The law appears to be well settled that if what is sought to be registered as a trade mark has a functional use or characteristic, it cannot be the subject of a trade mark.^[14]

The Court noted that the Trade-marks Act specifically excluded protection from "utilitarian features of a distinguishing guise".^[15] It recognized that allowing the claim created a concern with "overextending monopoly rights on the products themselves and impeding competition, in respect of wares sharing the same technical characteristics."^[16] The Court agreed with the Federal Court of Appeal ruling, which found no difference between the legal attributes held by registered and unregistered marks. It looked to the text and the legislative history of the act to determine that there was no intention to give unregistered marks more protection than registered marks.

Passing Off

Though the Court disposed of the case in ruling there was no cause of action under trade-mark law, it nonetheless considered the common law tort of passing off. It found that three elements were required to establish the tort:^[17]

existence of goodwill,
deception of the public due to a misrepresentation, and
actual or potential damage to the plaintiff.

In this case, K's claim was bound to fail because it would not have met the first condition of the action. The alleged distinctiveness of the product consisted precisely of the process and techniques which were now common to the trade.^[18]

While deception had been proven, the SCC noted that the trial judge had interpreted it too narrowly. Misrepresentation may be wilful and may thus mean the same thing as deceit. But now the doctrine of passing off also covers negligent or careless misrepresentation by the trader.^[19] As there was no discussion in the present case as to the question of damages, no comment was made.

Impact

Kirkbi, together with General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing , are leading cases on the scope of Parliament's trade and commerce power, particularly with respect to the general branch of that power.^[20] It reflects the current view of the Court that favours interprovincial economic integration, especially with the respect to the views expressed by Peter Hogg and Warren Grover:

It is surely obvious that major regulation of the Canadian economy has to be national. Goods and services, and the cash or credit which purchases them, flow freely from one part of the country to another without regard for provincial boundaries. Indeed, a basic concept of the federation is that it must be an economic union.... The relative unimportance of provincial boundaries has become progressively more obvious as industry has tended to become more concentrated.^[21]

On the more specific questions of intellectual property law, Kirkbi can also be seen as encouraging manufacturers of products embodying functional modular designs to employ appropriately clever branding and marketing, so that such designs may be seen as a source of distinctiveness, and thus deserving of trademark protection.^[22]

Related Research Articles

Trade dress is the characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is an aspect of trademark law, which is a form of intellectual property protection law.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian trademark law</span>

Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trademarks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trademark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.

General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine.

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc[2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

Mega Brands Inc. is a Canadian children's toy company that is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Mattel. Mega Bloks, a line of construction set toys, is its most popular product. Its other brands include Mega Construx, Mega Puzzles, Board Dudes and Rose Art. The company distributes a wide range of construction toys, puzzles, and craft-based products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defences and remedies in Canadian patent law</span>

A patent holder in Canada has the exclusive right, privilege and liberty to making, constructing, using and selling the invention for the term of the patent, from the time the patent is granted. Any person who does any of these acts in relation to an invention without permission of the patent owner is liable for patent infringement.

In Canada, passing off is both a common law tort and a statutory cause of action under the Canadian Trade-marks Act referring to the deceptive representation or marketing of goods or services by competitors in a manner that confuses consumers. The law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing competitors from passing off their goods as those of another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utility in Canadian patent law</span>

In Canadian patent law, inventions must be useful, in addition to novel and non-obvious, in order to be patented.

Under Canadian trade-mark law, the "doctrine of functionality" provides that features that are primarily functional in nature cannot be registered as trade-marks. The doctrine of functionality reflects the purpose of trade-mark, which is the protection of the distinctiveness of the wares and services associated with a trade-mark. Unlike patents, trade-marks do not protect the utilitarian features of products. The doctrine of functionality is reflected in section 13(2) of the "Trade-marks Act", which provides that: "No registration of a distinguishing guise interferes with the use of any utilitarian feature embodied in the distinguishing guise". On the basis of functionality, courts have denied trade-mark protection for such features as the pattern of knobs on LEGO blocks and the shape of the head of an electric razor.

Under Canadian trade-mark law, "confusion" is where a trade-mark is similar enough to another trade-mark to cause consumers to equate them. Likelihood of confusion plays a central role in trade-mark registration, infringement and passing-off. Whether a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing is a question of fact. The role of confusion in trade-mark law is analogous to the role of substantial infringement in patent law.

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 SCR 120, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on trademark law and more specifically the issue of passing off. Ciba-Geigy brought an action against Apotex and Novopharm, alleging that their versions of the prescription drug metoprolol were causing confusion to the public due to their similar appearance to Ciba-Geigy's version of the drug Lopresor. On appeal to the SCC, the issue was whether a plaintiff is required to establish that the public affected by the risk of confusion includes not only health care professionals but also the patients who consume the drugs in a passing off action involving prescription drugs of a similar appearance. The Supreme Court held affirmatively on this question.

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams, 2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57, it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces.

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the relevant criteria and basic approach to be undertaken by the Court in analyzing the likelihood of confusion in Canadian trademark law under the Trade-marks Act, 1985 The test adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada is whether, as a matter of first impression, the "casual consumer somewhat in a hurry" who encounters the Alavida trade-mark, with no more than an imperfect recollection of any one of the Masterpiece Inc. trade-marks or trade-name, would be likely to think that Alavida was the same source of retirement residence services as Masterpiece Inc. Furthermore, Rothstein J. affirmed a consumer protection principle of trade-marks as an indication of provenance, "providing consumers with a reliable indication of the expected source of wares or services." Rothstein J. delivering the majority judgment of the Court held that Alavida's proposed trade-mark "Masterpiece Living" was confusing with at least one of Masterpiece Inc.'s trade-marks when the registration application was filed on December 1, 2005. Alavida was therefore deemed to be not entitled to registration of its proposed marks, allowing then for the Registrar of Trade-marks to expunge Alavida's registration from the registrar.

Desgagnés Transport Inc v Wärtsilä Canada Inc, 2019 SCC 58 is a major Canadian constitutional law ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the interplay of federal and provincial jurisdictions under the Constitution Act, 1867.

References

↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 29956 Supreme Court of Canada
↑ Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65, [2005] 3 SCR 302(17 November 2005)
↑ Trade-marks Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13
↑ Bernstein & Huggins 2006 , p. 734
↑ Bernstein & Huggins 2006 , p. 734, citing The Attorney General of Ontario v The Attorney General of Canada and others ("Canada Standard Trade Mark Case") [1937] UKPC 11 , [1937] AC 405(28 January 1937), P.C. (on appeal from Canada) and MacDonald v. Vapor Canada Ltd., 1976 CanLII 181 , [1977] 2 SCR 134(30 January 1976), Supreme Court (Canada)
↑ Kirkbi (FCT), par. 33–34, noting CApatent 443019 , CApatent 629732 , CApatent 880418
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 4, noting the last Canadian patent expired in 1988.
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 6
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 7
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 9
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 10
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 11
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 20–36, using the test for constitutionality as restated in Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), 2002 SCC 31 at par. 58, [2002] 2 SCR 146(28 March 2002)
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005, par. 45, citing Parke, Davis & Co. v. Empire Laboratories Ltd., 1964 CanLII 74 at 354, [1964] SCR 351(23 March 1964), Supreme Court (Canada)
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 43
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 52
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 66, quoting Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 1992 CanLII 33 at par. 66, [1992] 3 SCR 120(29 October 1992)
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 69
↑ Kirkbi SCC 2005 , par. 68
↑ Bernstein & Huggins 2006 , p. 736
↑ Bernstein & Huggins 2006, p. 736, noting General Motors, citing Peter Hogg; Warren Grover (1976). "The Constitutionality of the Competition Bill". Canadian Business Law Journal. 1: 197–228.
↑ Robertson 2004 , p. 146